Fade a layer's opacity between two frames in one call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| toFrame | Yes | ||
| elementId | Yes | ||
| fromFrame | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | Opaque project id (a v4 UUID, from list_projects/create_project). Selects which existing project this call mutates. | |
| toOpacity | Yes | 0..1. | |
| fromOpacity | Yes | 0..1. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation, but it does not say whether existing opacity keyframes are replaced, whether keyframes are created at the exact given frames, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects the mutation has. For a mutating tool, this is a meaningful gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, and it is immediately scannable for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With six required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this tool needs more behavioral and usage context than a one-liner provides. The description does not explain return values, error conditions, default behavior, or whether the operation mutates persistent project state beyond the implied fade.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers opacity ranges and projectId, while the description adds useful relational context by framing the parameters as a fade between two frames. It helps connect fromFrame/toFrame and fromOpacity/toOpacity as paired endpoints, but elementId and the frame fields still lack individual documentation, so the description only partially compensates for the 50% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Fade'), a specific resource ('a layer's opacity'), and the exact scope ('between two frames in one call'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_color_keyframe or add_keyframe, which handle different or more granular animation operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'in one call' implies this is the tool to use for a simple two-point opacity fade rather than building the fade manually with keyframes. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like add_keyframes or set_keyframes_batch, nor does it give conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tool set has several clusters that overlap conceptually: add_keyframe/add_keyframes/set_keyframes_batch, move_band/move_layer/shift_group/set_group_window, and fade_layer/set_layer_transition/set_layer_visible all target similar actions. However, each tool's description is distinct and detailed enough for an agent to disambiguate after careful reading. The sheer volume of 95 tools still creates meaningful selection risk.
Tool names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_, remove_, set_, list_, rename_, create_, delete_), which is predictable and readable. Minor inconsistencies exist: plural variants like add_keyframes vs add_keyframe, mixed specificity like remove_keyframe vs remove_color_keyframe, and a few oddballs like reid_project and clip_processing_status. Overall the pattern is strong and helps navigation.
95 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and will overwhelm agents; even a comprehensive video editor could consolidate keyframe batch operations, overlay/track manipulations, and page/group window controls. Many tools are highly specific (reid_project, safe_zones, move_band) and place burden on the agent to pick among near-synonym verbs. While the broad domain justifies many operations, this count is excessive for a coherent tool surface.
The surface covers a broad editing lifecycle: layers, keyframes, text, captions, audio, pages, groups, versions, projects, workspaces, and collections, including batch operations. However, there is no MCP tool to render/export the final MP4 (explicitly delegated to an SDK) and no upload_video tool for bringing in a clip file, leaving major end-to-end gaps. For the stated purpose of building and editing videos, these are significant omissions that force agents to stop short of delivery.